KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
trackend said:
Do you have these books on the Typhoon/Tempest?
THE HAWKER TYPHOON TEMPEST
by Francis K. Mason
ISBN 0-94667-19-3
THE TYPHOON TEMPEST STORY
by Thomas Shores
ISBN 0-85368-878-8
The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Do you have these books on the Typhoon/Tempest?
THE HAWKER TYPHOON TEMPEST
by Francis K. Mason
ISBN 0-94667-19-3
THE TYPHOON TEMPEST STORY
by Thomas Shores
ISBN 0-85368-878-8
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
it's definately between the tiffy and P-47 but i'm sayin tiffy.....
Concorde247
Senior Airman
KraziKanuK said:
I've got both the Dvd's TYPHOON at WAR and TEMPEST at WAR - They're really worth getting! - Check out
http://www.ddvideo.co.uk/
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks KK and concorde I shall make inquires I ve got some footage
of various ground attack aircraft gun cams and the Tiffy stll looks impressive to me. I also have a book by Francis Crosby of the Imperial War Museum Duxford but its a general fighter aircraft book and only gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect
of various ground attack aircraft gun cams and the Tiffy stll looks impressive to me. I also have a book by Francis Crosby of the Imperial War Museum Duxford but its a general fighter aircraft book and only gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect
- Thread starter
- #25
Trackend,
Did you say that you had a book by Francis Gabreski that, "... gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect""
I am trying to find out what the climb rate was for the P-47D with paddle blade prop.
Does that book of yours address this?
Did you say that you had a book by Francis Gabreski that, "... gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect""
I am trying to find out what the climb rate was for the P-47D with paddle blade prop.
Does that book of yours address this?
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Thanks Brunner for the enlightenment on Yaks....I've never really been a fan on things Russian and what you say supports other things I've read about them...I have a respect for German engineering, and the precision they have with the things they make do, and Erich is correct in the quality of airmanship of the Luftwaffe, right to the end.....
I feel that in 'ground-attack' there is a difference between strafing and bombing/rocketing, and with 8 x .5's, the P-47 certainly gets the 'strafing' prize, and while I don't know the full extent of the P-47's service in the ETO other than escort duties, I do know a deal about the Typhoon Tempest's service...[ those books mentioned being THE one's to read on them...]
Therefore, I believe the 'Typhoon' really should be the holder of the
'Best Ground-attack in the ETO'', most of what I've learned indicates this, particuarly an ancestor having flown them, and the Tempest's role was more one of maintaining the Air Superiority that the Allies had achieved by then....their work sorting-out V1's was well known, and their scraps with the Luftwaffe also...
There is another book called '' The Wild Winds'' by Paul Sortehaug, which is RAF 486 [NZ] Sqn.'s story, who were also in the same 2nd TAF Wing as my ancestor's Sqn., and their story is a great read....
''Typhoon'' for me, guys..... [''P-47 - as ''Best Strafer''.........]
I feel that in 'ground-attack' there is a difference between strafing and bombing/rocketing, and with 8 x .5's, the P-47 certainly gets the 'strafing' prize, and while I don't know the full extent of the P-47's service in the ETO other than escort duties, I do know a deal about the Typhoon Tempest's service...[ those books mentioned being THE one's to read on them...]
Therefore, I believe the 'Typhoon' really should be the holder of the
'Best Ground-attack in the ETO'', most of what I've learned indicates this, particuarly an ancestor having flown them, and the Tempest's role was more one of maintaining the Air Superiority that the Allies had achieved by then....their work sorting-out V1's was well known, and their scraps with the Luftwaffe also...
There is another book called '' The Wild Winds'' by Paul Sortehaug, which is RAF 486 [NZ] Sqn.'s story, who were also in the same 2nd TAF Wing as my ancestor's Sqn., and their story is a great read....
''Typhoon'' for me, guys..... [''P-47 - as ''Best Strafer''.........]
Attachments
Erich
the old Sage
I think the Tiffy and Jug would be best described as fighter-bomber.
Ju 87D variant bitte
Ju 87D variant bitte
Erich said:
It's hard to describe P47 without any ambiguity. It was excellent as a fighter-bomber, its firepower and endurance beyond doubt, but originally it was designed to perform escort duties on high altitude.
Jug pilots knew that and dived to strafe only if sure that there are no 190's in their sector...
Erich, I would say Ju87 G, Kanonenvogel
Gemhorse, I am not Yak enthusiast at all too.
I am under great impression of German precision and technology (even if such point of view is not very popular in my country).
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well if you want a dedicated ground attack platform this changes things.......
Concorde247
Senior Airman
The Tiffy still has it by a short nose
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Typhoon or P-47, no doubt. In the East could be Il-2m of Ju-87D-5
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but erich's right, the tiffy and -47 are fighter-bombers, not dedicated ground attack platforms.........
- Thread starter
- #33
Only Germany and the USSR deployed aircraft designed exclusively for the purpose of ground attack.
The Luftwaffe had both the Henschel Hs129 and the Stuka -first as dive bomber, later as tank buster-. The soviet fellows launched their IL-2.
Later on the RAF and USAAF found some of their toys had good capabilities in the ground attack mode: P-47, Typhoon and Tempest.
The Germans also deployed some of their planes to perform ground attack tasks: the Bf110 in North Africa, equipped with 3 cm cannon and the very famous Fw190 Fs.
Perhaps the very best ones were the Fw190 and the P-47. Both had radial engines and could endure heavy damage and survive.
The soviets followed a similar path, and the several Yak versions, saw service conducting ground attack missions, sustaining prohibitive losses since the Yaks were extremely vulverable, even to rifle caliber guns.
The IL-2 is, no doubt, the most overrated and overinflated aircraft of the entire conflict.
It is simple: had Germany won the war, the obsolete tag would be belonging to the Shturmovik.
You do not know clumsy until you see footage of Il-2s in flight. Its nearly 1 ton of armor, while of good help against massed light caliber guns greeting it from the ground, turned out to be its own enemy.
Interception was easy, for we are talking about a single engine aircraft, and its massive armor was of very little help against the heavier guns and cannons of German fighters; flak crews also had an easy target to pull the trigger at.
If you are thinking of bringing up the argument of the rear gunner included on the late versions of the IL-2 i will have to tell you it was the same flawed idea as recorded on all planes that carried defensive armament.
If the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF, with its massive size and massive defensive machine guns were extremely vulnerable to interception, think of the situation of an aircraft the same size of its interceptor, virtuallu uncapable of manouvering, fitted with only ONE defensive MG.
An aircraft that suffered horrific losses, as it is the case of the IL-2, is a true testimony of the actual capabilities of the plane -and of the pilots that flew it as well.-
I am confident when saying this: even if attacking ground targets from the air was a very difficult task i am convinced the Germans were the best at it.
Mr. Zetterling conducted interesting researches on the matter and discovered both the RAF and USAAF failed big time to destroy German armored units in France, prior to the D-Day landings.
Other than causing important delays on the arrival of panzer units to the critical points of the front, the damage they inflicted to German ground units was minimal.
They would claim numbers of panzers destroyed that did not even exist for the entire Normandy campaign of 1944.
The Luftwaffe had both the Henschel Hs129 and the Stuka -first as dive bomber, later as tank buster-. The soviet fellows launched their IL-2.
Later on the RAF and USAAF found some of their toys had good capabilities in the ground attack mode: P-47, Typhoon and Tempest.
The Germans also deployed some of their planes to perform ground attack tasks: the Bf110 in North Africa, equipped with 3 cm cannon and the very famous Fw190 Fs.
Perhaps the very best ones were the Fw190 and the P-47. Both had radial engines and could endure heavy damage and survive.
The soviets followed a similar path, and the several Yak versions, saw service conducting ground attack missions, sustaining prohibitive losses since the Yaks were extremely vulverable, even to rifle caliber guns.
The IL-2 is, no doubt, the most overrated and overinflated aircraft of the entire conflict.
It is simple: had Germany won the war, the obsolete tag would be belonging to the Shturmovik.
You do not know clumsy until you see footage of Il-2s in flight. Its nearly 1 ton of armor, while of good help against massed light caliber guns greeting it from the ground, turned out to be its own enemy.
Interception was easy, for we are talking about a single engine aircraft, and its massive armor was of very little help against the heavier guns and cannons of German fighters; flak crews also had an easy target to pull the trigger at.
If you are thinking of bringing up the argument of the rear gunner included on the late versions of the IL-2 i will have to tell you it was the same flawed idea as recorded on all planes that carried defensive armament.
If the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF, with its massive size and massive defensive machine guns were extremely vulnerable to interception, think of the situation of an aircraft the same size of its interceptor, virtuallu uncapable of manouvering, fitted with only ONE defensive MG.
An aircraft that suffered horrific losses, as it is the case of the IL-2, is a true testimony of the actual capabilities of the plane -and of the pilots that flew it as well.-
I am confident when saying this: even if attacking ground targets from the air was a very difficult task i am convinced the Germans were the best at it.
Mr. Zetterling conducted interesting researches on the matter and discovered both the RAF and USAAF failed big time to destroy German armored units in France, prior to the D-Day landings.
Other than causing important delays on the arrival of panzer units to the critical points of the front, the damage they inflicted to German ground units was minimal.
They would claim numbers of panzers destroyed that did not even exist for the entire Normandy campaign of 1944.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
DAVIDICUS said:
Hi Dave The book is called Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby Published by Hermes House in 2003. Anness publishing Ltd Email [email protected]
It doesn't mention anything about the paddle Prop all it says is according to this book is a total of 15,660 P-47's where produced out of which 12,602 were D models
Engine... Pratt Whitney 2535hp R-2800-59 double wasp eighteen cylinder radial
Armament.....Eight 0.5 machine guns plus external bombs or rockets to a max of 2500lbs.
Wingspan 40ft 9in
Length 36ft 1in
Height 14ft 8in
Wing area 300sq ft
Weights empty 9950lb
Maximum take off 17,500lbs
Performance Max speed 433mph
Ceiling 41,000ft
Range 1900 miles with three drop tanks
Climb rate 3200ft per minute
It does also mention the P-47M but all it says is that was used to catch V1's as it had a speed of 470mph and air brakes fitted so it could decelerate once it had caught enemy aircraft (although personally im not sure the reason for the airbrakes is that accurate).
Sorry that's all the info I have Dave.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Udet,
do you think the Ju 87 could have been 'converted' to a fighter? Why I ask, you ask? Well there was plans to make the Il-2 into a fighter.
trackend,
I think your book is wrong about the 47M and V-1s. The Ms arrived in the ETO after the V-1 threat had been eliminated. 'The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.'
do you think the Ju 87 could have been 'converted' to a fighter? Why I ask, you ask?
Well there was plans to make the Il-2 into a fighter. trackend,
I think your book is wrong about the 47M and V-1s. The Ms arrived in the ETO after the V-1 threat had been eliminated. 'The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.'
Krazi:
The Stuka was designed for dive bombing and to keep up with the advance of panzer units (that is why it had a non retractable sound undercarriage so it could land on very rough terrain, to refuel, rearm and continue supporting the panzers). So it could not be converted to fighter. Not without making radical modifications to the original design; so had it
Had the IL-2 been converted to fighter, it is kind of easy to figure out the outcome of its engagements against German fighters.
The
The Stuka with its fixed undercarriage (meaning drag), had almost identical maximun speed to that of the IL-2 (which had a retractable undercarriage), does that tell you anything?
The Stuka was designed for dive bombing and to keep up with the advance of panzer units (that is why it had a non retractable sound undercarriage so it could land on very rough terrain, to refuel, rearm and continue supporting the panzers). So it could not be converted to fighter. Not without making radical modifications to the original design; so had it
Had the IL-2 been converted to fighter, it is kind of easy to figure out the outcome of its engagements against German fighters.
The
The Stuka with its fixed undercarriage (meaning drag), had almost identical maximun speed to that of the IL-2 (which had a retractable undercarriage), does that tell you anything?
Do you know that in the end of 1941 the Soviets tried to equip Sturmovik with the radial engine?
There was a single plane with M 82 engine (the same as in Su2 and La5), but its performance wasn't quite impressive...
Well, as for me, the performance of Sturmovik wasn't impressive at all, even with AM35/ AM38 engines
What is interesting about this particular Il2 is that it was the first Sturmovik with rear gunner armed with UBT 12.7mm machine gun.
I'm trying to find any pictures, sketches or whatever, of this weird Il2 but telling the truth I'll be extremely surprised if I succeed to find any...
There was a single plane with M 82 engine (the same as in Su2 and La5), but its performance wasn't quite impressive...
Well, as for me, the performance of Sturmovik wasn't impressive at all, even with AM35/ AM38 engines
What is interesting about this particular Il2 is that it was the first Sturmovik with rear gunner armed with UBT 12.7mm machine gun.
I'm trying to find any pictures, sketches or whatever, of this weird Il2 but telling the truth I'll be extremely surprised if I succeed to find any...
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Several ranking German Generals credited the P-47 in ground attack mode as a very significant part in the defeat of Germany.
I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare.
The spread of 8 x .50cal must be awesome especialy against troops.
I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare.
The spread of 8 x .50cal must be awesome especialy against troops.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Yeah, that's what I thought, 8 x .50's would certainly be like a 'scythe through the wheatfields'....
The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered......
Another thought, Mustangs were used from quite early in the War as 'Ground-attack', on account of the early variants being more suitable for low altitude work, in ETO CBI, so how do they rate in this...they certainly went on to do excellent work at this way into Korea...??
Gemhorse
The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered......
Another thought, Mustangs were used from quite early in the War as 'Ground-attack', on account of the early variants being more suitable for low altitude work, in ETO CBI, so how do they rate in this...they certainly went on to do excellent work at this way into Korea...??
Gemhorse
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
